In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday scrapped a ruling by a lower federal court that deemed otherwise reasonable force by a police officer unreasonable if the officer “intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation.” The justices sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, leaving open a victory for the plaintiffs if the court can find wrongdoing on charges other than excessive force.

The case, County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez, involves an incident that took place in October 2010. Los Angeles County police officers were searching a residence for a parole violator who was at-large and apparently armed. A number of officers searched the main area while two deputies, Christopher Conley and Jennifer Pederson, burst into a shack in the back of the residence.

In the shack, a homeless couple, Angel Mendez and Jennifer Garcia, who was pregnant, were taking a nap underneath a heap of blankets. Mendez reached for a gun (later discovered to be a BB gun). Conley yelled “Gun!” and the deputies sprayed the couple with bullets.

Both lived, but Mendez had to get part of his leg amputated. Meanwhile, the parolee the officers were seeking was not found on the property. Mendez and Garcia sued the deputies and Los Angeles County on three Fourth Amendment claims: warrantless entry, knock-and-announce, and excessive force. The lower courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on all three counts, awarding the couple $4 million.

But the Supreme Court, in a 8-0 vote–Justice Neil Gorsuch had not been confirmed when the case was argued in March–vacated the lower courts’ excessive force ruling. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit argued the officers’ use of force was reasonable, but because the two deputies provoked the situation, their actions were ultimately unreasonable. The justices disagreed with that outlook, halting the $4 million recovery for the plaintiffs.

“The basic problem with the provocation rule,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote, is that it “provides a novel and unsupported path to liability in cases in which the use of force was reasonable.” He said the Fourth Amendment “provides no basis for such a rule,” adding: “A different Fourth Amendment violation cannot transform a later, reasonable use of force into an unreasonable seizure.”

In a statement, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs cheered the decision: “This invented rule put the lives of deputies into danger by causing them to hesitate in using reasonable force to defend themselves for fear of later civil liability,” it said.

Alito did allow, however, that the Ninth Circuit could still find reason to award damages to the plaintiffs. He wrote: “For example, if the plaintiffs in this case cannot recover on their excessive force claim, that will not foreclose recovery for injuries proximately caused by the warrantless entry.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Two LA Cops Who Shot a Homeless Couple appeared first on Law Street.

If you saw her, you likely wouldn’t suspect that the 86-year-old, elegant and well-spoken woman with white hair is a major criminal. But Doris Payne, who was arrested in Atlanta on Tuesday, is one of the most prolific jewel thieves of all time.

Payne was just arrested for trying to steal a $2,000 necklace from a department store by slipping it into her back pocket. But she has been an active thief since she was a teenager, and by the early 1970’s she was a jet-setting criminal touring the world. She has stolen expensive diamonds from Paris, Milan, London, and Tokyo, and has a rap sheet longer than most. In 2013 she was arrested for stealing a pricey ring in Los Angeles. The president of the Jewelers’ Security Alliance, John Kennedy, said to the LA Times at the time that he had seen her list of accomplishments. “It was so long. You can’t believe how long it was–it was like 50 pages.”

In 2013 she got away with stealing a $22,500 diamond ring in a shop on the exclusive El Paseo row in Palm Desert, Los Angeles. But the next day a security alert was released, saying that Payne had been spotted at the local Saks Fifth Avenue store, and the store’s staff figured out that she had been there the previous day. They then realized that the ring she had tried on was missing. When she was arrested, she pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years in jail and two years under supervision. The judge also ordered her to stay away from all jewelry stores.

Doris Payne, 86, legendary jewel thief with six decade career, strikes again outside Atlanta https://t.co/LEwjdw2fce

— Joseph L. Savitz III (@JoeySavitz) December 14, 2016

Due to her age and long “career,” Payne has become something of a celebrity thief, starring in a 2013 documentary called “The Life and Crimes of Doris Payne.” She has also been featured on TV and in newspapers countless times. The jeweler in the store that she stole from in 2013, Raju Mehta, mainly laughed about the incident. According to the LA Times, he said: “I was laughing because we have a lot of celebrities come by. And now we say we’ve got a celebrated thief too.”

At this point, it’s an honor to have your jewelry stolen by Doris Payne, tbqfh

— My Prez Is Still Blk (@FeministaJones) December 14, 2016

Payne is currently being held at DeKalb county jail in Atlanta. Sonjia Williams, a spokeswoman for Payne, said that she was shocked to hear the news of the arrest: “I have no idea why she would go out and do this. She knows better.” But Matthew Pond, who co-directed and co-produced the documentary about her, said that he was not very surprised. He stated:

The documentary we made about her focused on a crime she was accused of in San Diego and during her sentencing, as sad as he was to have to send her to prison, the judge said, ‘She’s the Terminator. She won’t stop,’

He added that Payne is a bit of an actress who loves the attention and easily gets bored. Sometimes she admits to stealing but sometimes she totally denies it. He described her as a person who started doing bad things for a good reason and then started liking it. And that seems true. “I don’t have any regrets about stealing jewelry,” she said in the documentary. “I regret getting caught.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Notorious 86-Year-Old Jewel Thief Doris Payne Strikes Again appeared first on Law Street.

The LAPD will not assist President-elect Donald Trump in any way if he decides to follow through with his deportation plans, said police chief Charlie Beck on Monday. Trump has pledged to deport millions of illegal immigrants, a promise that has caused anxiety for many of the undocumented, as well as fully legal, immigrants in the country. Los Angeles County is home to roughly one million out of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. But Beck said his police force will not do anything differently just because there is a new president:

We are not going to engage in law enforcement activities solely based on somebody’s immigration status. We are not going to work in conjunction with Homeland Security on deportation efforts. That is not our job, nor will I make it our job.

LAPD will not help deport immigrants under Trump, chief says https://t.co/zVnPuPLgXX pic.twitter.com/TWhejyi0j9

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) November 14, 2016

The LAPD has a long tradition of not complying with  federal guidelines on the issue of undocumented immigrants. Officers are not allowed to stop someone simply because of their immigration status, or to ask about it. Officers have additionally stopped handing over people arrested for small crimes to federal agents for deportation and also no longer hold inmates who might be deportable after they served their time.

California is a liberal state and is so unhappy about Trump’s election that many people there have recently been campaigning for Calexit—to make California independent from the rest of the U.S. Now that many worry about what will happen under Trump, officials in the Golden State have tried to comfort people. The LA Archbishop Jose H. Gomez held a special prayer service last Thursday, saying, “In the past couple days since the election… we have children in our schools who are scared. They think the government is going to come and deport their parents.” He said that the church will keep supporting immigrants that are here illegally.

pic.twitter.com/wAPa6ied6y
100,000 people rally against US Fascism and for #CalExit
We are an undeniable force

(yes, it is LA ~1500 Wilshire)

— #CalExit NaphiSoc (@NaphiSoc) November 15, 2016

LA Mayor Eric Garcetti called for a meeting at Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles and promised that he would stand up for his people. “If the first day, as president, we see something that is hostile to our people, hostile to our city, bad for our economy, bad for our security, we will speak up, speak out, act up and act out,” he said.

On Friday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill–Senate Bill 10–that would let undocumented immigrants buy health insurance through the state exchange. It passed the state senate on Monday but requires approval by the federal government. If that happens, it would make California the first state to let illegal immigrants who make too much money to qualify for low-income plans buy insurance from the state exchanges.

In times like these, it is reassuring that some people are determined to stay empathetic and show solidarity with others.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The LAPD Says it Will Not Assist Trump with Any Deportation Plans appeared first on Law Street.

The serial killer known as the “Grim Sleeper” was sentenced to death by the Los Angeles County Superior Court on Wednesday. His real name is Lonnie David Franklin Jr, now 63. His story plays like a horror movie.

Franklin used to work as a garbage collector in Los Angeles, where he killed at least 10 young women in the span of 22 years, from 1985 to 2007. He got his nickname because he seemed to be inactive between 1988 and 2002. But detectives believe he might have killed many more women within those years, and maybe wasn’t inactive at all.

Franklin faced the court on Wednesday morning with many family members of his victims present. He was convicted earlier this year of killing ten women. Investigators said he repeatedly denied killing anyone, and he didn’t utter a word at the trial. His defense lawyers suggested the real killer was someone else, and asked for his life to be spared.

The "Grim Sleeper" Lonnie David Franklin Jr. is sentenced to death after killing 10 women in South LA from 1985-2007 pic.twitter.com/8RfDRIEYrG

— AJ+ (@ajplus) August 10, 2016

Some people in the community say the “Grim Sleeper” was probably able to carry on his horrible killings for so long because he targeted poor, black women who were either drug addicts or prostitutes. Such women were not always reported missing, and were not high priorities for police.

In most of the murders, Franklin shot them and then left them in the trash or along the road. But one of his shooting victims managed to get away, and her statement, combined with DNA and ballistic evidence, led to Franklin’s conviction.

Deputy District Attorney Beth Silverman described Franklin in her brief as “a psychopathic, sadistic serial killer who takes joy in inflicting pain on women and killing them.”

The mother of one victim said in court that he took her daughter’s life and put her in a trash bag. She hoped life in jail would become his trash bag, she said. But Judge Kathleen Kennedy gave him the death penalty, saying, “This is not a sentence of vengeance.” She added: “It’s justice.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Grim Sleeper” Serial Killer Receives Death Sentence for LA Murders appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, in a tragic turn of events, more than 50 people were killed and more than 50 others wounded in a late night shooting and hostage situation in Orlando, Florida. Now considered the deadliest mass shooting in American history, the tragedy took place in a gay Orlando nightclub called Pulse.

Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer has now declared a state of emergency in the city. The shooter has been identified as Omar Mateen, 29, of Port St. Lucie, which is roughly 12o miles from Orlando. He was killed by police. He brought multiple weapons into the club, including an AR-15 and a handgun–Orlando’s police chief John Mina said that: “it appears he was organized and well-prepared.”

It is unclear at this point exactly what Mateen’s motivation was, but sources are reporting that he swore ISIS alliance.

As of right now, many survivors are being treated at local hospitals, and there is an urgent need for blood donations in the area.

County fire officials @Local2057IAFF say Orlando has a “urgent need” for blood donations following mass shooting pic.twitter.com/IdTQCPoWk7

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) June 12, 2016

June is pride month in the United States, and pride celebrations occurred in Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Boston, Detroit, Philadelphia, and other cities this weekend. Many of those events took some time to recognize last night’s victims–it was announced that the LA Pride Parade today began with a moment of silence for the victims in Orlando.

D.C.’s Capital Pride Festival also held a moment of silence.

From the US Capitol,our thoughts are with the people of Orlando. 1pm moment of silence at today’s Pride Concert. pic.twitter.com/ct4Y4uxQ69

— Capital Pride (@CapitalPrideDC) June 12, 2016

Some of the pride celebrations this weekend, like the one in Philadelphia, announced that they will be adding additional security to the venues.

The FBI and other officials have warned that a lengthy investigation into the shooting a the Orlando nightclub will be conducted–more details are sure to come as the investigation proceeds.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Horrific Orlando Nightclub Shooting Leaves More than 50 Dead appeared first on Law Street.

If you keep up with the latest exercise trends at all, you’ve certainly heard of SoulCycle. It’s a New York based fitness company that operates in many major cities and the classes are based on indoor cycling or “spinning.” The company promises “at SoulCycle we believe that fitness can be joyful. We climb, we jog, we sprint, we dance, we set our intention, and we break through boundaries. The best part? We do it together, as a community.” But one woman doesn’t appear to feel particularly welcomed by that community–a Los Angeles woman Carmen Farias is suing the exercise company after she dislocated her ankle during a 2014 class.

Farias claims that she went to the class in July of 2014, as part of a free promotion from her workplace. But she had never been to a spin class before, and alleges that she was not given proper training. She also claims that she didn’t sign the waiver that SoulCycle provides, which includes some basic bike riding instructions.

According to Farias, she had a hard time keeping up with the rather intense exercise class. She then claims that her instructor, Angela Davis, mocked her and told her that “we don’t take breaks.” Farias kept peddling, and eventually lost control and fell off the exercise bike. According to Buzzfeed News, the complaint reads:

Carmen was in serious peril. With the music blaring and in the shadowy darkness, Carmen was isolated on her spinning cycle. Her feet were locked to the pedals and the pedals just kept turning. Fatigue and disorientation overcame Carmen and she fell to her right and off of the saddle of the spinning cycle.

Her complaint alleges that she was “catastrophically injured” at the class. It also posits that her fall and subsequent injury were as a result of the negligence of both SoulCycle and her instructor. SoulCycle doesn’t appear to have returned requests for a comment to other news outlets, but it’s doubtful that this incident will slow the number of celebrities who frequent the exercise establishments.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Sues After Falling off SoulCycle Bike appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Vincente Fox Apologizes to Donald Trump for Profanity

Happy #ThrowbackThursday everyone! Remember when the former president of Mexico, Vincente Fox, told Donald Trump in an interview with Breitbart that he would not pay for Trump’s “f****** wall”?

That was crazy. But what’s even crazier is how last night Fox tried making amends with the presumptive GOP nominee in another Breitbart interview. Later the ex-president even invited Trump to Mexico. Fox claims it was in good form of him to apologize and Trump should do the same. Others say that the apology only makes Trump stronger. So does Trump win this rant-filled feud? See for yourself:

NFL warns against hefty meat consumption in Mexico and China for athletes

Vegans and health nuts everywhere are having a field day! The NFL is warning athletes not to eat too much meat from Mexico and China. Apparently eating large quantities of meat produced in those countries can lead to a positive test result for clenbuterol–a muscle building stimulant banned by the league’s drug policy. But besides the fact that this is a total vacation damper, it raises suspicion about the possibility of tainted meat from abroad.

Starbucks introduces new frappuccino despite lawsuits

Starbucks has been in the news quite a bit this week. This week, the coffee chain announced its new frappuccino: the Caramel Waffle Cone frap, which, if I’m honest, sounds freaking delicious!

But remember how Starbucks played us all with their ice-drink ratio thievery and their overall under-filling issue? A number of lawsuits have been filed against Starbucks for profiting off these cheap tactics. I certainly will never forget the day I spent $6 on a latte and was given half a cup of milk. I swore never to shop at Starbucks again. But…I wonder if those Caramel Waffle Cone fraps are any good.

You know me when #StarbucksHappyHour FRAPS are back I am there!! Tried the NEW Caramel Waffle Cone Frap! pic.twitter.com/tpuHLPKXqt

— Sydney Sanchez (@sydneysanchez21) May 4, 2016

Los Angeles: City’s Homeless Population Increases 11 Percent in 1 Year, Officials Say

Los Angeles, the city of Angels (and many say one of the best cities in the world, second to NYC) has a major problem: homelessness. In less than a year, Los Angeles’ homeless population  increased by 11 percent. Among the most affected are veterans and, for the first time ever this year, people between the ages of 18 and 24.

Martin Shkreli: Prosecutors Say Former Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Facing New Charges

To conclude our Throwback Thursday edition of RantCrush Top 5, let’s talk about Martin Shkreli. Yes, he’s back in the news. This “Pharma bro” is facing new charges, but we mostly remember him as the former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals who jacked up prices for an AIDS treatment by 5,000 percent overnight. He’s also the same guy who took possession of a prized WuTang Clan album and wouldn’t give it back. But today, Shkreli is facing additional charges for siphoning money from his business to relieve himself of debt at another one of his companies. Seems like everything is just one big game of Monopoly to this kid. Hopefully he’ll soon be out of the news for good.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: Cinco de Mayo Edition appeared first on Law Street.

This week, news became public that the daughter of late action star Paul Walker is receiving a $10.1 million settlement from the estate of the man, Roger Rodas, who was driving the car when it crashed, killing both Walker and Rodas.

The settlement was decided in November of 2014, roughly a year after Walker’s death, but the information about it wasn’t made public until this week. According to court documents, $7.2 million of the money is in a trust for Meadow Walker, 17, the rest went toward legal fees. However that $10 million-plus settlement is just a “fraction of what her father would have earned as an international movie star had his life not been tragically cut short.”

USA Today reports that Rodas’s estate released the following statement:

Through his estate, Mr. Rodas, the driver of the car, took partial responsibility for the crash. Meadow’s lawsuit against Porsche AG – a $13 billion corporation – intends to hold the company responsibly for producing a vehicle that was defective and caused Paul Walker’s death.

That lawsuit, brought by Meadow Walker’s lawyers against Porsche, is still ongoing. She is accusing the German-based carmaker of skimping on safety features that could have saved her father’s life.

Porsche claims that Walker’s death was Rodas’s fault for driving too quickly, particularly after an investigation conducted by Los Angeles police pointed to speed as the catalyst of the accident. Porsche has also alleged that the vehicle wasn’t properly operated or maintained. But Walker claims that the vehicle wasn’t going as fast as the investigation alleged; additionally Walker is arguing that had the Porsche been safer, her father wouldn’t have been severely burned after the crash–which ultimately led to his death. However it’s unclear if Walker’s lawsuit against Porsche will be successful–a similar lawsuit brought by Rodas’s widow ruled in favor of Porsche recently, stating: “Plaintiff has provided no competent evidence that Rodas’ death occurred as a result of any wrongdoing on the part of Defendant.”

For Meadow Walker, it’s all presumably bittersweet–while the money set aside in a trust for her will ensure that she has enough to live on, it’s certainly less than her father would have made had he not lost his life in the tragic 2013 crash, and can’t replace him.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paul Walker’s Daughter Awarded Settlement Money for Father’s Death appeared first on Law Street.

James Deen is back in the news for yet another not-so-good reason after his porn production company was slapped with an almost $78,000 series of fines for multiple health and safety violations.

California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) received a complaint about James Deen Productions, also known as Third Rock Enterprises, last December, and began investigating the production company owned by Deen. The violations that were discovered by Cal/OSHA include not mandating that performers wear condoms. The use of condoms in pornography is required by Los Angeles County law. According to the head of the agency, Juliann Sum:

Cal/OSHA requires condom use in adult films to protect workers from exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Third Rock Enterprises failed to protect employees from illness and injury while on set.

The production company also violated laws by not providing vaccines or medical examinations to performers who were potentially exposed to diseases, including Hepatitis B. All said and done, the company racked up nine violations, four of which were determined to be so dangerous that “death or serious harm” could have resulted. The fines associated with all those violations combined total $77,875.

Deen responded to the news of the agency’s decision; according to a press release sent to ATTN:

At no point was any adult performer exposed to any disease while working for James Deen Productions. At no time did any performer contract any illness or suffer any injury while working for James Deen Productions. […] I am not ok with the government dictating what people are allowed to watch in the privacy of their homes. This is a case of an outside organization pushing their personal desires and agenda on the viewers of adult entertainment. Just because the AIDS Healthcare Foundation decides they are not comfortable with certain sexual acts does not mean is should be deemed illegal.

James Deen has been under a lot of criticism over the last few months. In December, he was accused of sexual assault by nine different female adult performers, including his high-profile ex-girlfriend Stoya. After the allegations surfaced, a few different porn companies dropped Deen as a performer.

A law that requires the use of condoms by porn performers in Los Angeles County, known as “Measure B”, was certainly controversial when it passed in 2012–although in this case, Deen was cited under existing Cal/OSHA regulations. However Measure B led to concerns of an exodus of porn companies from Los Angeles when it was first passed. Deen was opposed to that law from the beginning–seems like he’s about to put his money where his mouth is when it comes to regulations in porn.

Editor’s Note: The last paragraph has been updated to more clearly reflect the language of the Cal/OSHA regulations.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post James Deen’s Porn Company Faces Hefty Fine for Health Violations appeared first on Law Street.

Cesar Millan is well known for his hit shows “Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan” and “Cesar 911.” A dog behavior specialist, the shows feature Millan working with dogs who have behavioral issues, often aggression. However a recent incident aired on “Cesar 911” now has the “dog whisperer” under investigation in Los Angeles.

In the episode in question Millan was attempting to train a dog named Simon, a French bulldog/terrier mix, who has been aggressive with his owner’s other animals. Millan was trying to condition Simon to be around those animals. He used one of them, a pot-bellied pig, in his training attempt. At one point Simon charged the pig and bit its ear. Some animal rights advocates are arguing that the use of the pig was abuse and the incident sparked the involvement of Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies and animal control officers. Here’s the clip from the show:

A petition urging National Geographic to take “Cesar 911” off the air has been launched on Change.org. It states:

Cesar Millans methods are inhumane and his shows need to be taken off the air. In this episode, Cesar used pigs as bait for a dog who was a known pig killer and all for ‘entertainment’ purposes and this is not the first time he has used bait animals. This is wrong! Using animals for bait is against the law.

However a statement from National Geographic essentially argues that the incident was taken out of context. It reads:

Millan was working with Simon, a French bulldog/terrier mix, who frequently attacked other animals, including his owner’s pet pot-bellied pigs. A short clip from the episode was shared online and showed Simon chasing a pig and nipping its ear, causing the ear to bleed. The clip caused some concern for viewers who did not see or understand the full context of the encounter. The pig that was nipped by Simon was tended to immediately afterward, healed quickly and showed no lasting signs of distress.

The investigation is ongoing, but Millan is reportedly confident that there will be no evidence of wrongdoing found.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Dog Whisperer” Cesar Millan Under Investigation for Animal Cruelty appeared first on Law Street.

The St. Louis Rams recently announced that they would be leaving St. Louis, Missouri for their new (and also old, given that they played there from 1946-1994) location of Los Angeles, California. However, St. Louis isn’t just losing its NFL team, it’s also now saddled with an all-but-useless, but very expensive, football stadium.

The St. Louis Rams built the Edward Jones Dome in 1995, right after moving to St. Louis. The deal to build it was viewed as potentially problematic by many in St. Louis pretty much from its inception. It was a $280 million deal, and it included provisions that St. Louis would keep the stadium in tip-top shape: it had to be “maintained to a first-tier standard, meaning the facility must be considered among the top quarter of all NFL football facilities.” Naturally, that provision became harder to uphold as the stadium aged, and new stadiums were built.

Recently, while the stadium was still actually being used by the team, revenue didn’t even amount to enough to pay for it, meaning that taxpayers were still stuck with some of the bill. The stadium, as it currently stands Rams-less, will cost taxpayers $144 million in debt and maintenance costs. While that money won’t just fall to the people who live within the confines of St. Louis–it will be also be paid by residents of the surrounding county, as well as the state of Missouri–it’s still a pretty big price tag for a team that now plays on the other side of the country.

St. Louis politicians have attempted to do something about the cost, but likely to no avail. St. Louis Board of Aldermen President Lewis Reed has asked the NFL to help out with the cost, but (predictably) has not received a response, at least as of yet.

Concurrently, the Missouri Senate is trying to pass legislation that would prevent Governor Jay Nixon from issuing bonds on any sort of new stadium without a popular vote or legislature support. It would also require the same provisions for the governor to authorize any improvements to Edward Jones Dome. State Senator Rob Schaaf is sponsoring it, and stated:

We’re just requiring them to get permission that we always thought that they had to have. Who would have guessed that Gov. Nixon would interpret the law to say that they could put us into debt, with a total of payments of $415 million over 30 years, without our say-so.

That bill has created some tension within Missouri’s senate–Minority Floor Leader Joseph Keaveny, a Democrat from St. Louis, told Schaaf: “You’ve done a very good job of discouraging the NFL to stay in St. Louis; I commend you for that!”

So, St. Louis is now saddled with an expensive stadium it has to pay off, and a bunch of angry legislators trying to figure out how to prevent something like this from happening in the future–not great news for the city or state as a whole.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rams Leave St. Louis, Leave Behind Debt-Saddled Stadium appeared first on Law Street.

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUD) shut down schools across the county this Tuesday after members of the School Board received a threatening email that referenced explosive devices, assault rifles, nerve gas, and machine pistols.

LAUD is comprised of over 900 schools that educate 640,000 students. Tuesday marked the first district-wide school closure since 1994, when classes were cancelled during the Northridge earthquake. Students took to social media to document their day off, treating it almost like a snow day. Some students even joked that they would have preferred school closing on Friday so that they could go to the premiere of the new Star Wars film. However, the scene within the deserted schools was far from lighthearted. Police officers walked through over 1,500 school sites, scanning for bombs or any other evidence of a terrorist threat. The message had discussed attacking students in school, mentioning packages and backpacks, but did not specify which school would be a target.

The email threat was also made against New York schools, but they remained open for classes on Tuesday. By the end of the day, the email was revealed to be a hoax and schools reopened on Wednesday morning without incident. New York mayor Bill de Blasio called the threat generic and outlandish, arguing that closing down schools for the day would be a disservice to New York students. Neither city seemed to be aware that the other city had received the same threat when they made their respective decisions for the school day. New York’s dismissal of the threat has led to doubts regarding whether Los Angeles make the wrong call–was shutting down school an overreaction?

Multiple news outlets have compared Los Angeles in the wake of the San Bernadino attack to New York in the wake of 9/11. Los Angeles should not be deemed oversensitive when the aftermath of brutal domestic terrorism still weighs heavily on the state, and the nation as a whole. It is still unclear who made the threat and a member of the House Intelligence Committee has stated that the threat may have been designed to disrupt school districts or to test school district responses to threats in large cities. Los Angeles did not witness any attack on its schools on Tuesday but, as Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck has said, it is easy to criticize the decision in hindsight, with all the information that is now available.

New York and Los Angeles may have witnessed a peaceful day at their schools on Tuesday but that doesn’t mean that every threat will be a hoax. School closure should still be treated as an extraordinary measure rather than a casual occurrence, but that doesn’t mean school districts should be criticized for wanting to protect their students. Los Angeles was justified in shutting down the district on Tuesday. Even though it may seem overly cautious to us now, when there are thousands of young lives at risk, the adage “better safe than sorry” should always be at the forefront of our decision makers’ minds.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post School Closure in Los Angeles: Overreaction or Justified Caution? appeared first on Law Street.

Bindi Irwin, the daughter of the late Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin, has been lighting up the dance floor on “Dancing With the Stars.” But, she’s also run into some problems with her contract on the show–a judge won’t let her legally receive the money she’s earned from the show unless she can prove her father is dead.

A judge rejected @BindiIrwin‘s #DWTS contract, demanding proof her dad is dead (no, really) https://t.co/mcnCm37Orm pic.twitter.com/eXAuJmNIR8

— TV Guide (@TVGuide) November 5, 2015

Irwin, 17, is a minor. Technically speaking that means that any money she earns as a result of her performance on the show goes to her parents. Her surviving mother, Terri Irwin, has already signed a release that entitles her daughter to the money in her own right. But an L.A. Superior Court judge is saying that she needs to provide the same release from her father–or proof that he died.

Irwin’s incredibly famous father, Steve, passed away as the result of an accident with a stingray in 2006. His death was widely covered and is under no circumstances a point of contention. While it won’t be hard for her to prove that he is, in fact, deceased, the entire bizarre case is making headlines due to the highly publicized nature of his death. As TMZ put it: “It’s unclear if the judge is unaware Steve died in 2006, or if she’s just a stickler for a death certificate.”

Public reaction to the news has been mixed–while some are highly sympathetic for the young woman who lost her father at a very young age, others are pointing out that it’s a basic legal requirement that she should have no problem fulfilling.

Either way, there’s a lot of cash on the line for Irwin. By just appearing on the show, she’s guaranteed $125,000, and then gets more money for each week she successfully avoids elimination. Making it through Weeks 3 and 4 gave her another $10,000 each week, Week 5 was $15,000, Weeks 6 and 7 were worth $20,000 each, and Weeks 8 and 9 are worth $30,000 apiece. Given that she’s made it through Week 8, so far she’s racked up $230,000. If she makes it through this week she’ll earn another $30,000, and Weeks 10 and 11 are worth $50,000 each.

Irwin’s close relationship with her late father has, at points, been an important reference on the show. During the Week 4, she choose the song “Every Breath You Take” for a contemporary dance dedicated to her father with show partner Derek Hough.

While this blip with her contract is certainly unfortunate and definitely odd, Irwin is clearly a young woman with a lot of talent–she’ll probably continue to go far on the show and keep racking up that cash.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bindi Irwin Needs to Prove Steve Irwin is Dead to Receive DWTS Money appeared first on Law Street.

A place once called the “City of Angels” is now known as the gang capital of the nation. Los Angeles, California has become one of the most gang prevalent cities in the United States. Over the past three years there have been a total of 16,398 verified gang crimes in LA including homicides, rapes, robberies and felony assaults. These gangs have affected many families and communities by taking the lives of innocent people. One of the families recently affected by this violence was the family of Tavin Price. Price, a developmentally disabled 19-year-old, was shot and killed in front of his mother on Friday in Southern Los Angeles, in an incident that many believe was gang related.

Price and his mother, Jennifer Rivers, were on their way to the beach when they stopped at a car wash near the corner of Florence Avenue and Crenshaw Boulevard. According to Detective Eric Crosson of the Los Angeles Police Department, while Tavin’s mother was at the carwash he went to a nearby market to purchase cigarettes. There he was approached by a suspect described as a black man in his late teens or early 20s and was questioned about his red shoes. Crosson stated, 

He was confronted by someone who inquired about his possible gang affiliation because of some red clothing he was wearing. He denied being a gang member and went back to where his mother was.

Price, who was no taller than 5 feet and less than 100 pounds, quickly returned to his mother as she said “let’s go” while the man followed him. Before they could leave, Tavin was shot four times in the back and chest. After hearing gunshots, Rivers turned around and chased the gunman until she lost sight of him. Price was then rushed to the hospital where he passed away during surgery. Rivers stated,

Every time I close my eyes, I see my son’s eyes rolling around as he cried, ‘Mommy I don’t want to die.’ That’s my final memory of him. But I can’t let that be my strongest memory.

Price would have turned twenty on Monday, and had just accepted a warehouse job. Police and family members believe that Price had no affiliation to any gang. Detective Crosson said that he was victimized because he wore “the wrong color in the wrong neighborhood.” The color red is associated with a dangerous network of street gangs founded in Los Angeles called the Bloods. Melvin Farmer, a gang interventionist who was formerly associated with the Crips–the rivals of the Bloods and affiliated with the color blue–said the car wash stands on a dividing line between the rival gang territories. Detective Eric Crosson describes this area as “exceptionally violent” and has noted at least five other killings nearby. About three blocks away a 40-year-old man was killed two days before Price. A few blocks farther, a 28-year old woman was killed two weeks earlier. It does not appear that these murders have any connection, but are representative of the prevalence of violence in the gangs’ territories. Tavin’s mother stated:

I wish he would have just shot me instead of my child because that’s cold for a mother to watch somebody just gun her child down in front of her face. That’s a hard, hard thing to deal with, believe me, I can’t even sleep at night since my son died.

Price’s family held a vigil at the car wash where he was described as a man “who loved his family more than anything.” Antheyst Jarrett, a 27-year old black woman, was arrested after the shooting and has been charged with witness intimidation and conspiracy to commit murder. Authorities say she was present during the confrontation. Police are still working hard to find the suspect and bring peace and justice to Price’s family.

R.I.P. #TavinPrice, a young man who was murdered near Florence & Crenshaw ’cause his shoes were the wrong color. #BlackLivesMatter

— The Eclectic Beings (@EclecticBeings) June 2, 2015

Gang violence has declined in Los Angeles, but there is still significantly more work to do. In the LA area alone, there have already been over 200 homicide deaths in 2015. According to the Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles, LA has more than 400 gangs, with over 39,000 members. Communities, families, and policemen have to continue to work hard to put a stop to this violence and to save the lives of innocent people like Tavin Price.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Los Angeles Teen Killed: Was His Shoe Color to Blame? appeared first on Law Street.

Waze is a popular application that provides information to drivers about the best route to take, and utilizes user-generated information to alert drivers to where cops are located. Because of this feature, Waze has encountered criticism from various police forces and the government; however, that same technology is now enabling Waze to partner with the city of Los Angeles for the greater good.

Instead of just providing drivers with the fastest way to get from point A to point B or warning them to slow down because of speed traps, Waze will now also provide alerts to users about hit-and-run incidences as well as kidnappings, in order to try to crowd source aid. The app may also be used to provide other information to Los Angeles users, such as notifications about road closures or other delays. Additionally, Waze could create a way for users to interact with the city, such as features that allow reporting downed lights or other things that need to be taken care of by the government.

This partnership was announced by Mayor Eric Garcetti in his recent State of the City speech, and spokespeople working for Waze have said that they’re happy to be working with the city of Los Angeles. The company was purchased by Google in 2013 and has continued to grow rapidly. While Waze is working with other cities as well, such as Boston and Washington D.C., this new move to partner with L.A. seems to be very extensive, and is a big get for Waze. De-Ann Eisnor stated about the new partnership, “We are very, very excited that Los Angeles is doing this. It’s huge for us.”

It’s also a good move for the city. Overall, some ten percent of its residents use the application. Los Angeles actually has the highest population of Waze users in the United States, at around 13.1 million, and the second highest population in the world, after Sao Paolo. It’s important to keep in mind however, that Los Angles and Sao Paolo are very big cities–the city with the highest proportion of Waze users is Tel Aviv, where Waze was founded. Adding more public safety features to the app in L.A. may up the user count there even more.

This new partnership probably won’t go all the way toward assuaging concerns that police officers, or governments, have over the app. The fact that it can provide information about the whereabouts of police officers certainly can be viewed as concerning. That being said, with all the potential for public benefit, Waze seems like it can end up doing a lot more good than harm.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Waze App and Los Angeles Announce Partnership appeared first on Law Street.

We have all seen them, whether we are sitting in a doctor’s office in the middle of the day, home sick during the week, or just because they’re kind of fun. Either way, court shows like “Judge Judy” and “Judge Joe Brown” seem to have captured the world’s attention. Recently, Judith Sheindlin–Judge Judy–signed on for her eighteenth season of the show, earning herself $47 million a season for what is famously known as just “52 days of work a year.”

Judge Judy, and all of the others–Brown, Lane, Mathis, Hatchett, Alex, Rinder, etc.–are all practicing lawyers. Most were retired or on the way to retirement when they were discovered by a television producer. But that still begs the question: how exactly do TV courts work, what are their legal implications, and are they at all real?

 What are Court TV shows?

Court television shows are usually on in the middle of the day, often right when people are getting home from work and starting to cook dinner. The topics usually aren’t heavy things like murder, drugs, or assault cases. Instead they consider lighter issues like rent problems, car damages, or theft. Judges tend to be funny and lash out with zingers toward the people involved in the case. It is all about entertainment, not a real legal process.

However, the shows are among the highest watched for their time slot, which means that if one judge isn’t connecting with the audience, another one is right in line to take that spot.

Infographic courtesy of Online Paralegal Programs.

 How do you end up on TV court?

Getting onto a court show is actually one of the smartest things a person can do, even if he ends up being portrayed as the “villain” in the narrative. Why? Participants all stand to make money.

In general, most of the cases that end up going on to TV shows are cases that would otherwise be heard in small-claims court. According to FindLaw, there’s only a certain amount of money litigants can receive. For example, individuals who appear on “Judge Judy” would be able to receive a maximum of $5,000. It’s safe to assume that the rest of the shows have relatively similar limits.

According to FindLaw, regardless of the outcomes on any of the shows that play nationally, there are benefits to both parties in the case. The shows actually pay for the arbitration awards, which may be why people don’t always seem to be too worked up at the end in the cool down interviews. They also pay for the litigants’ airfare and hotel expenses.

In other cases, there have been situations where producers have found people who were popular or characters already and they have actually been courted into doing the show. For example, local Cleveland celebrity Colin Dussault was asked to be part of a newer judge show called “Hot Bench.”

A Hollywood producer contacted Dussault after “field researchers” came across his small-claims lawsuit against his sister, which he filed in Lakewood Municipal Court in January. In a nutshell, they’ve got issues with who should pay the ongoing bills for a double they inherited and both live in. (Double Trouble?)

In addition to prompt payment of any settlement, the producer promised, Dussault would get an additional “guaranteed minimum payment” just for being on the show!

 What happens on a TV court show?

Court shows like Judge Judy aren’t actually court cases, but instead they are an arbitration process, which is a way to resolve disputes without actually going to court. An arbitrator, always some sort of neutral party, hears a case and makes a binding decision. It’s less formal than a court case, but it does require training

The shows are all filmed at studios in Los Angeles near many different studios that also happen to film television shows. In fact, “Judge Judy” is filmed right next to “Judge Joe Brown.” In order to ensure a full audience, the producers of all of the shows will hire extras who comprise the entire gallery and who sign waivers to stop the disclosure of any details. However, they also take visitors who are willing to sign similar forms.

What happens after the show?

As a general rule, arbitration awards cannot be appealed. But there have been a few cases in which, according to The New York Times,  TV judge rulings have been overturned through other court systems. This can be because the artbitration didn’t cover everything necessary or if the case was found to be beyond the scope of arbitration.

According to FindLaw:

For example, a New York family court in 1999 overruled part of a “Judge Judy” decision because it went beyond the scope of the arbitration, the New York Law Journal reports. The parties in that case had agreed to arbitrate a dispute over personal property — but Judge Judy’s ruling also granted child custody and visitation rights.

In 2000, Judge Judy had one of her decisions overturned…In the case B.M. v. D.L., the parties appeared in front of Sheindlin to solve a personal property dispute. Sheindlin ruled on that dispute, but also made a decision on the parties’ child custody and visitation rights. One of the parties appealed in court, and the family court overturned the custody and visitation part of the decision because they weren’t covered by the agreement to arbitrate.

Ethical Concerns

For people who have never really been in a court room, it can seem like there aren’t really any ethics that exist when it comes to television court. For one, there are no lawyers even present on the television shows. There are problems, of course, with the editing and the way people are portrayed by the producers of the show.

Recently a committee was formed to discuss the problems with court television shows and the impact they have on the lives of those who appear–often people who are young and trying to avoid paying costs that they can’t afford. The committee, comprised of retired judges, said:

In this modern media culture once the taping is done and it is released into the public domain it is there forever and can come up from time to time during this defendant’s entire life. It could be used against this person in a personal, political, economic or social situation to his or her extreme detriment. Your recitations that the videos in your court are a number one rated show broadcasted to 200,000 households in three counties speak volumes in this regard. How might it appear to a defendant that he or she must be asked by the judge to waive any objection to appear on television? Would they be intimidated by the question knowing that the judge encourages this production?

These cases are often straight forward, but played up for laughs, drama, and a clear-cut decision. There have been many questions about the fates of people who end up on reality shows, and that is a question that exists with the “reality” of court shows as well.

Conclusion

So yes, the decisions on TV court shows are a reality–someone has to pay (usually the show) and someone is in trouble (usually younger-skewing teens or adults who can’t afford much else). You’re getting, in essence, a half-truth of what the court process is actually like.

One final word of caution to anyone who found this on a search: Appearing on a TV court show like “Judge Judy” involves signing off on a lot of legal fine print. You may want to consult an attorney to make sure your rights are protected before you pursue your 15 minutes of fame.

 Resources

Futon Critic: Ethics Panel Rips TV Drug Court

Mental Floss: What Legal Authority Does Judge Judy Have?

Cleveland.com: Playing Hard to Get When Courted by Reality TV Court Show

Fact: Judge Judy Overruled by Judge Jeffrey

Futon Critic: Judge Judy Sheindlin, Host of Syndication’s #1 Rated Show “Judge Judy,” Signs Multiyear Deal Through 2020

Frugal Confessions: It Pays to Have Your Small Claims Case on a Court Television Show

Washington Post: The Lasting Appeal of TV’s Top Woman: Judge Judy

Vice: These Guys Made Up a Fake Case to Get on ‘Judge Judy’

Editor’s Note: This post has been revised to credit select information to FindLaw. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Verdict? The Truth Behind TV Court Shows appeared first on Law Street.

Bruce Jenner, the Olympian and former patriarch of the Kardashian/Jenner clan, was involved in a car crash in Malibu, California yesterday. The four-car pile up left one driver dead and a few others with minor injuries. While it seems like the crash itself is a pretty routine, although tragic, reality of driving a car in the United States, there may be more to it than that.

The story is a sad one–a white Lexus stopped short in front of Jenner’s car on a road in Malibu after stopping to avoid another car in front of it. Apparently it was on a part of the road that is difficult to navigate. According to evidence from the scene of the accident, Jenner appeared to slam on the brakes in an attempt to avoid the Lexus; however, he wasn’t able to stop his car in time, and hit the back of the Lexus, pushing it into oncoming traffic. The Lexus was hit by a Hummer, and the resulting impact left the driver of the Lexus dead.

The Sheriff’s department has opened a vehicular manslaughter investigation. The department has said that everyone involved–including presumably, Jenner–is cooperating with the investigation.

There have been many rumors floating around about what exactly happened during the accident. Jenner is claiming that members of the paparazzi were following him; however, the police say that’s simply not true. In response to the paparazzi rumors, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Lt. John Lecrivain said:

That is a very regular occurrence, and (there is) no indication at this time it was a contributing factor of the crash.

If Jenner was trying to get away from the paparazzi, it makes sense that he would be driving too close to the car in front of him, maybe trying to get around the Lexus, or just in a frustrated rush. There’s also the chance that it wasn’t a member of the paparazzi following him, but Jenner just thought the paparazzi was after him. In the age of smartphones and easy-to-access cameras, passersby could have seen Jenner and tried to grab pictures of him. In addition, Jenner has been in the news a lot lately–an amateur paparazzo could have fooled him.

There are also rumors that he may have been using his cell phone at the time of the crash. According to news reports earlier today, the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department started looking into Jenner’s phone records to see if he was texting and driving at the time of the collision; however, even if they do find something, it might be hard to prove that the phone played a factor. It’s difficult to determine if a phone was actually being used at the exact time of the collision.

Whether or not there will be any legal ramifications for Jenner remains to be seen. It’s obviously good that he’s cooperating with the police, but that doesn’t guarantee that he’ll come out scot-free. While it may have been a total accident, if there was anything that Jenner did that contributed to it, he may be on the hook.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will There Be Legal Charges for Bruce Jenner After Car Crash? appeared first on Law Street.

For those of you keeping track, Chris Brown has landed himself in legal trouble for at least the third time since his assault of then-girlfriend Rihanna in 2009. This time the R&B singer found himself in court because of a recent performance he gave at the Fiesta Nightclub in San Jose, California. The terms of Brown’s probation require him to get permission before leaving Los Angeles County; however, he didn’t do that, and instead traveled over 300 miles outside of the county for the January 11 show.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James R. Brandlin revoked Brown’s probation yesterday in light of the unapproved travel, as well as the fact that Brown is still 200 hours short of completing the required community service component of his plea agreement. Probation revocation isn’t necessarily a go-directly-to-jail card; judges have several different options at their disposal in this type of situation, including requiring entry into some type of treatment program or adding additional time onto the length of probation, among other things. In Brown’s case, Brandlin is allowing the singer to remain free at least until March when another hearing in the matter is scheduled.

Brown’s attorney Mark Geragos–known for representing celebrity defendants, including Michael Jackson and notorious wife-killer Scott Peterson–claimed that Brown’s unauthorized travel was not in fact the singer’s fault, but rather that Geragos’ office provided him with bad information on this particular term of his probation.

Brown’s probation dates back to the infamous incident with Rihanna following the Grammys in 2009, when he choked, punched, and bit her. Since his arrest and subsequent plea agreement in that case, Brown has not stayed out of legal trouble. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault last year after being arrested for punching a man outside his Washington, DC hotel. He was sentenced to time already served after spending two days in jail; however, because he was already on probation for assaulting Rihanna he received 131 days in jail as a result of the new guilty plea. He was also ordered to enter rehab as a result of this incident, but he was kicked out for violating the center’s rules before finishing the four-month program. He was also charged in a hit-and-run incident in early 2013, but the charges were later dropped.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chris Brown is Back in Court…Again appeared first on Law Street.

On January 12, 2015, the State Bar of California Commission on Access to Justice awarded UCLA School of Law, Southwestern Law School, and Pepperdine University School of Law a one-year grant to establish a modest means incubator. This pilot program will be designed to help new attorneys develop and launch viable practice models for serving modest means clients. This project was one of four chosen out of two dozen applications received by the commission. While the Commission awarded $185,000 total in grants to four projects throughout California, the grant given specifically to these three law school for the modest means incubator totals $45,000.

These three law schools have partnered with local legal aid organizations and the Los Angeles County Law Library in order to develop the Los Angeles County Incubator Consortium. This consortium will prepare 12-15 recent law school graduates–four or five from each of the schools–for working with and providing legal services to low and modest income populations through training in establishing law practices.

According to California Supreme Court Justice and Chairman of the Access Commission’s grant review committee  Goodwin Liu:

This is a wonderful first step in nurturing the next generation of lawyers providing legal services for everyday people with modest means. The unmet legal needs in our communities are well-documented, and this could serve as a model for incubator projects throughout California and nationwide.

The goal of this one-year program is to provide these graduates with the tools for effective solo practice management. These include client communication, case management, and business opportunity development. Additionally, program participants will receive training in various substantive areas of law in exchange for providing 200 hours of pro bono representation. In order to get the most out of this program, participants will receive guidance and mentorship from lawyers and retired judges on legal strategy.

Other members of the program, including Bet Tzedek, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Community Legal Services, Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, and Public Counsel, hope to develop a successful incubator program that can serve the legal needs of low and modest income populations throughout all of Los Angeles County in the long run.

Overall, this program will be beneficial to everyone involved. It will allow new law school graduates the opportunity to do meaningful work while learning from experienced members of the legal field, and it will give lower income families access to the legal services that they need, but would otherwise be unable to afford. Hopefully, the first year of this modest means incubator will be successful, and the program will continue to provide these services for years to come.

It would also be ideal to see this program used as a framework for incubator programs across the country, and not just in Los Angeles. Those everywhere earning low and modest incomes could benefit from pro bono legal services, as it is unlikely that they would be able to afford them otherwise. Other law schools can model programs after this one, while tailoring their individual programs to the specific needs of the city where they are located. While upfront these programs will cost a significant amount of money, the benefits that they will bring to everyone involved will make them worth it in the long run.

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Los Angeles Law Schools Create Program to Help Low Income Clients appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all! Hope you’re having a great holiday season!

California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill in September to remove plastic bags from checkout counters at grocery stores and supermarkets like Wal-Mart and Target starting summer 2015, and 2016 at convenience stores and pharmacies.

Many businesses don’t agree with this ban and have started to collect signatures in order to put a referendum on the ballot in November 2016. American Progressive Bag Alliance, a trade group for plastic bag manufacturing, claims to be turning in about 800,000 signatures. The group really only needs 500,000 valid signatures to qualify for the referendum but it could take several weeks for the counties to determine if all of the signatures are valid.

There are already about 100 counties in California that ban plastic bags, but it is not required for the whole state. It’s no surprise that San Francisco and Los Angeles are two of the cities that already have this ban.

I like the idea of banning plastic bags; it helps the environment. But I don’t like the idea that if you forget to bring your own cloth bags with you then you either have to purchase new ones or you pay ten cents per paper bag. That can start to add up after a while. When I go to the grocery store I go to get things to last me for a week or two, not just a couple of days. I tend to walk out with a ton of bags at once, not just two or three. I don’t imagine everyone shops for just a day or two in advance; grocery shopping takes time out of an already busy day for most.

The majority of Californians support the ban on plastic bags, but why not allow those people who do not support it to still use plastic without a fee? For everyone who likes the ban, continue using your cloth bags and doing what you do!

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Californians Fighting Against Plastic Bag Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Lately our lives have been beaten down by the constant news about terrorists. It seems like terrorism is everywhere we turn. What happened to the days when we all lived in the nice little American bubble where terrorism didn’t even seem to be a word we could rightly understand? Now it is a word that we use on a daily basis. 9/11 was the starting point of a scary reality for most of this generation and its connection to terrorism. Before that day we could get on a plane and not have to worry about if the person next to us had a bomb in their underwear or constantly wonder and worry about what might happen next. People are unpredictable and you never know what could happen. The security blanket of living in a nation considered a Super Power is no longer there; we walk around with a target on our backs.

Finally our government is getting it together and figuring out what to do to make our world a little bit safer. Even amid all things ISIS at least the government is finally trying to do something. Kudos to President Obama on the airstrikes the other night!

In an effort to deter people from becoming homegrown jihadists, our government has started a pilot program in three cities: Los Angeles, Boston, and Minneapolis. The administration is looking for new ways to intervene in the lives of people who may want to launch an attack on us, even American citizens. The ideas they have put together seem a bit strange and big brother-esque to me, but a necessary evil in terms of protecting the many from the few.

My biggest question though, is how do you know who to look for? How do you know who is thinking or planning anything?

I always think of the film Enemy of the State when it comes to trying to keep an eye on terrorism. What if some innocent person gets pulled into something they aren’t even aware of and the government ruins their entire lives? And once it figures out they aren’t “the guy” it just leaves them alone with a simple apology and they have to to pick the pieces of their life.

How much are we willing to give up to our government in order to be safe? This is something I struggle with all the time because I certainly do not believe in big government, but I do believe our citizens should be safe and protected from harm’s way. Unfortunately there is no right or wrong answer.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Federal Pilot Program Aims to Deter Homegrown Jihadists appeared first on Law Street.

I don’t know about you, but I had a great Labor Day. My sister Ariel flew up for the weekend, and we stuffed our days full of fun activities like seeing Book of Mormon on Broadway and going to a Yankees vs. Red Sox Game. We laughed, cheered, and created the “Adventures of Stick Figure Amber” – where I drew our annoyingly absentee sister into every single picture and gave her some wacky adventures of her own in an effort to pretend she was there.

Perhaps the highlight of this trip was what we did on Saturday and Sunday: attend Jay Z’s “Made in America” music festival in Philadelphia. We saw tons of great acts – one being Kanye West. (We also saw that in our advanced old age of early-to-late twenties, we were perhaps already too old for this type of event. I’ve never wanted to say “Do your parents know you are here?” more than when I saw all those pre-teens dressed in practically nothing openly drinking and doing drugs. Kids today! But that is straying from the point…)

As Ariel and I danced (rather I jumped up and down like an idiot while Ariel stood still glaring at me with disdain) and people-watched, we had no idea what shameful secrets were brewing just underneath the surface. (That might be an overly dramatic opening to what I am about to write.)

The lawsuit about which I am going to tell you is not really all that funny or even out of the ordinary; however, it is really exciting because it kind of, sort of, on a tangent, not really but I’m counting it deals with an event that I was attending. And that makes it interesting to me if to no one else.

Courtesy of gifsoup.

Did you know that “Made in America” the music festival was named after a Jay Z and Kanye song with the same name? Brooklyn rapper Joel McDonald didn’t. Or rather, he knew it was named after a song with the same title, but he was under the impression that it was his song, not the rap legend duo’s. He came to this conclusion based on the fact that he sang and sold on iTunes this song in 2009, but it was done by Jay Z and West in 2011 — with no mention of McDonald there.

Let’s compare…

McDonald’s song:

Jay Z and Kanye’s song:

Are they the same? McDonald hopes people will think they are close enough, because to celebrate the third annual “Made in America” festival, now located in Los Angeles as well, McDonald sued for $3 million for copyright infringement in Manhattan Supreme Court.

What do you think: Will Jay Z soon be in a little less of an empire state of mind or will McDonald find out that New York isn’t the concrete jungle were dreams are made for everyone? Was Kanye acting more stupidly or did McDonald say something when he gon’ end up apologin’? Will Jay Z…I could go on with these all day.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawsuits and Copyright Infringement Made in America appeared first on Law Street.

In case you hadn’t heard from the overwhelming amount of posts dedicated to them, the MTV Video Music Awards happened on Sunday. I, along with millions of other pop-culture followers, tuned in to watch the usual shenanigans of the music industry’s most famous and most notorious. As predicted, there was twerking, flashy costumes, lip-syncing, wardrobe malfunctions, laughter, tears, tripping, and Moonmen. Basically: all the things that forever have me questioning why I watch this nonsense in the first place.

But then, two things of note happened. The first, out of all the unlikely sources, came from the Artist Formerly Known as Hannah Montana.

Yes!

When her name was announced as the winner of Video of the Year (for “Wrecking Ball”, naturally), Miley Cyrus sent up a man named Jesse in her stead. Jesse took out some cards and began speaking. What followed was surprising and heart-wrenching:

“My name is Jesse and I’m accepting this award on behalf of the 1.6 million runaways and homeless youth who are starving, lost, and scared right now. I know this because I am one of these people.”

Visibly nervous, Jesse went on to explain, through constant cheers from the audience, how you could go to Miley’s Facebook page and donate money to help homeless youth in America. I was extremely impressed with this gesture from Miley, as she is now utilizing her substantial fan base to raise awareness and funds for an important cause.

Well done, Miley!

The VMAs were far from done, though. Before the night was through, another celebrity chose to use her VMA performance as a loudspeaker for one of my favorite subjects: feminism. Enter Beyonce.

Courtesy of beyoncegifs.tumblr.com

 Like every Beyonce performance ever, she had intense dance moves, sparkly costumes, and so-so vocals. But her music is not why we are here. No, THIS is why we are here:

Courtesy of beyoncegifs.tumblr.com

In a world where feminism is still (somehow) misunderstood, one of the most popular musicians of our generation declared herself a feminist. That’s not all. Before lighting up “FEMINIST” in big letters, we heard the words of Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie:

“We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller. We say to girls, you can have ambition, but not too much. You should aim to be successful, but not too successful. Otherwise, you would threaten the man…Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political, economic equality of the sexes.”

If you haven’t already, listen to the rest of this woman’s wise words. The entire speech can be watched here. Go ahead, watch. I’ll wait.

Done? Good.

So Beyonce not only declared herself a feminist, she defined what feminism truly is and did it in front of millions of viewers. I gave her a standing ovation right in my living room. Yet, in spite of all the truth she used her performance to convey, she is still getting negative feedback:

If Beyoncé is a feminist then I think it’s a very cheap and easy sort of feminism she’s flogging. Not really my thing.

— Billy Lunn (@billysubway) August 25, 2014

If Beyoncé has taught us anything, it’s that strip clubs need 10′ tall “FEMINIST” signs

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) August 26, 2014

Beyoncé, you’re not a feminist. You sing the lyrics “If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it”. That’s the opposite of feminism — Ryan Travers (@ryantravers) August 25, 2014

I couldn’t hear Beyonce’s #feminist statement @ #VMAs over the thong & glittered ass dance ensemble behind her. #ILikeBigButtsAnICannotLie

— Su Castillo (@snarkyzebra) August 27, 2014

Thanks to @Beyonce I learned tonight that requiring female back-up dancers to dry hump everything in sight is #Feminism. Empowering! #VMA

— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) August 25, 2014

why can’t Beyoncé make her mind between feminism and female objectification though — Matt Gehring (@mattygehrbear) August 25, 2014

See anything wrong with these? You should. All of them perpetuate a view that someone can somehow demonstrate “incorrect” feminism or that they aren’t “feminist enough.” Really? When feminism’s definition was literally spelled out in front of you?

Just because someone dresses sexy, dances provocatively, or strips on a stripper pole does not mean they can’t be a feminist. Just because a woman is a stay-at-home mom, a Christian, or happily married, does not mean she can’t be a feminist. Feminism does not just encompass all women, it encompasses all people from all walks of life.

If you believe women should be given equal salaries to men in the same field: that’s a feminist ideal. If you believe a woman can be whatever she wants to be, like the President of the United States, or an exotic dancer, or a soccer mom: that’s a feminist ideal. If you think women are objectified in media and entertainment, so do feminists.

“Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political, economic equality of the sexes.”

How much clearer can you get? Beyonce performing sexually suggestive routines and songs does not mean she cannot call herself a feminist. Anyone who says otherwise is drawing attention away from the fact that she used her considerable influence to get across a feminist message. For that, we should applaud her. Luckily, most everywhere you look, praise for her VMA performance far outweighs the ridicule and misunderstanding. There is hope for humanity yet!

If nothing else, what should come out of both Beyonce’s and Miley’s demonstrations at this year’s VMAs are more celebrities supporting good causes. When they have such large followings, why wouldn’t they? So Beyonce, Miley: you two keep doing you.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beyonce’s Feminist Message Receives Praise…And Ridicule? appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [JRKagen via WikiMedia Commons]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #1 Southwestern Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Mishigaki via WikiMedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #3 Loyola Law School, Los Angeles appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Coolcaesar via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #4 UCLA School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Coolcaesar via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law: #8 UCLA School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Not even the rich and famous can escape being subpoenaed. And sometimes, a delusional fan is the reason for it.

At the premiere of his latest movie last Thursday, Johnny Depp was served legal documents calling him as a witness in a murder case. But Depp wasn’t a witness to the crime, nor does he know the person who committed it. So what’s the connection?

In 2009, Nancy Lekon  was driving in Los Angeles when she struck and killed a passenger, who was dragged by her car for over a mile. Lekon claimed that she was in such a rush because she was on her way to meet Depp; with whom she claimed to be in a relationship.  But there is no connection between Depp and Lekon besides the woman’s (perhaps) delusional obsession with him.

Lekon’s lawyer has been trying to prove she is not guilty by reason of mental insanity, and wants Depp’s testimony to prove that. If Depp testifies that he was not dating Lekon, it would go to support the claim. The fact Depp was subpoenaed is a bit of an anomaly in itself. A subpoena is a legal document that compels someone to testify in court. If you’re subpoenaed and don’t show up, you could be held in contempt.

In a lot of cases, it makes sense to subpoena someone. If there is a crime with one key witness, or someone with a very specialized field of knowledge, it would make sense to compel them to testify in a trial- without them, important information would not be heard by the jury or judge, and the verdict could be skewed as a result. But in this case, it seems like just about anyone could have surmised that Lekon wasn’t actually dating Depp.

So why was Depp subpoenaed so publicly, five years after the crime? One would assume Mr. Depp’s publicists could have gotten this information to Lekon’s attorney in writing, and have the information be just as effective. It’s possible that despite this subpoena, which Depp probably wasn’t expecting, he won’t take the stand physically. Rather, he could submit a written statement, or testify via a phone call.

This isn’t the first time a celebrity will have testified about someone they don’t know. In November of 2013, Alec Baldwin took the stand to testify against a stalker of his. But the difference between Baldwin and Depp is that Baldwin’s life had been affected by the woman stalking him- as she repeatedly called and messaged him. Depp, on the other hand, has never been in contact with Lekon.

Nonetheless, the tactic is an interesting one from Lekon’s public defender. There will probably be other medical evidence and professional testimony to support the insanity defense, but the ability to utilize a figure as public and well known as Depp himself might really drive home the attorney’s assertion about Lekon. While many people claim insanity defense as a way to escape being held responsible for their actions, a delusion as grandiose as this one could be the icing on the cake to help Lekon escape this murder charge.

And while this is definitely a new (and odd) tactic, it’s possible that Lekon’s attorney is doing it for show. In situations like this, where a party has relevant information but could provide the same information in a written format, they would just go through a deposition. So the fact Depp was served these papers at his movie premiere, about a 5-year-old case, regarding a woman he has never met, seems fishy at best. Knowing the extent of Depp’s resources, it wouldn’t be surprising if his own lawyers find a way for Depp to get out of testifying in person.

[CNN] [TMZ]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Caroline Bonarde Ucci via Wikipedia]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Celebrity News: Johnny Depp Subpoenaed appeared first on Law Street.

A TSA employee was fatally shot on Friday morning inside terminal three at Los Angeles International Airport when a gunman opened fire with an assault weapon at 9:20 a.m. The shooter has been identified as Paul Anthony Ciancia, 23 years old, from Pennsylvania. Ciancia moved to California approximately 18 months ago and has no prior criminal record. According to LAX Police Chief Patrick Gannon, the gunman “pulled an assault rifle out of his bag and began firing. He moved into the screening area and continued shooting.” Additional reports stated that authorities tracked down the suspect and shot him near a Burger King before taking him into custody. He was shot four times, including once in his mouth and twice in his chest; he remains heavily sedated with 24-hour armed guard protection at a local hospital.

The Los Angeles Fire Department reported that seven people were treated for injuries at the scene and were then taken to a local hospital. The TSA identified the victim as Gerardo Hernandez, 40 years old, working as a travel document checker. Two additional officers were injured and hospitalized.

Prior to the shooting, Ciancia’s father contacted Pennsville state police about a disturbing text from him to his brother. Although the incident is still under investigation, a note was discovered in his bag in which Ciancia stated that he “wanted to kill TSA and pigs,” and that he was a  “pissed-off patriot.” Witnesses reported that he walked from person to person, asking if they were affiliated with the TSA. The note also indicated that Ciancia thought that his rights were being violated by TSA.

State prosecutors have charged Ciancia with the first-degree murder and killing a federal officer. These charges makes him eligible for life in prison without parole or even the death penalty.

There has been a tremendous amount of loss. People are traumatized as one victim reported, “I’ve never been afraid like that.” Gerardo’s wife said, “I am truly devastated.” Moreover, the shooting resulted in troublesome flight delays due to the prolonged shutdown of the nation’s third largest airport terminal, which serves Virgin America, AirTran, Spirit Airlines, Horizon Air and JetBlue. After the shooting the terminal was out of service and all planes in the air were diverted to other airports. President Obama also took notice of the incident and expressed his condolences to the victim’s family.

Although the shooter has been arrested and charged within the criminal justice system, questions arise as to who is responsible, and how did the gunman manage to bring his weapon inside the nation’s largest airport? According to ABC News, one of Ciancia’s intentions was to display how easy it is to get a gun into an airport.

This is not the first killing spree in Los Angeles. A limo driver opened fire at the same airport, killing two police officers in 2002. In fact, several cases of mass shootings have caught national attention in the media lately. Another recent example is the Navy Yard shooting in which the shooter killed twelve people and wounded four in Washington, D.C.

Why has there been an increase in this type of tragic event all over the nation? There was a total of nine mass shootings last year at a variety of locations. Shooters have not explicitly targeted government buildings, rather, they have focused on sensitive areas in order to maximize the damage. Is this because of law enforcement’s ineffectiveness at security checkpoints or is it due to weak gun control laws? Whatever the reason may be, these incidents give a credible standpoint to all those who support gun control, but the question remains, are guns really the problem?

[Los Angeles Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Flobrio via Wikipedia]

Asim Mian

Asim Mian is a graduate of George Mason University. Contact Asim at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mass Shootings in America: LAX Airport appeared first on Law Street.

The parents of Robert J. Thomas have received a $7.5 million jury award. Police shot the 21 year old seven times outside of a Los Angeles County party with more than 60 other attendees. The parents claim that police assumed assumed their son and the other attendees to be members of the Crips gang.

The deputies arrived at the party and frisked Thomas as he stood outside. When Thomas fled he was shot seven times when the officers believed he was reaching for a gun. The police department says Thomas was a known gang member. After two days a deliberation, a 7 person jury, of which five were female, found that Thomas had been unarmed at the time of the shooting despite the fact that sheriffs department showed the jury the gun that they said was recovered from Thomas’ pocket.

After the verdict Thomas’ father, Robert Sr., said “it feels great for it to be proven that my son was never a gang member.” The family’s attorney said that the deputies believed they were arriving at a gang party, however, Thomas was simply working security and showed no signs of any involvement with the gang.

[Full Article: JDSupra]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Devol via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Parents of Son Shot Dead by Police Win $7.5 Million appeared first on Law Street.